On 21 July 2011 11:06, Rémi Després <[email protected]> wrote: > > Le 20 juil. 2011 à 18:25, Wojciech Dec a écrit : > >>>> ... >>>>> If packets are sent to that address, they >>>>> get passed to NAT44. Hosts behind the CPE or apps on the CPE will not >>>>> use/bind to that address. > >>>> >>>> AFAIK, this prohibits using the full CE-assigned IPv6 on the CE LAN side. >>>> Such a constraint isn't needed with "4V6 encapsulation". >>> >>> No. > > A justification of this "no" is missing, because:
It's not missing. Please do read once more the rest of the mail, as well as those of others. > - The CE 4V6 address is synonymous with a valid IPv6 address in the range > defined by the CE IPv6 prefix. > - With 4V6T, a translated IPv4 packet entering a 4V6 site cannot be > distinguished from an IPv6 packet destined to this valid IPv6 address. > > An example: > > Host > H > +-+ router > | |< 2001:db8:a:: > | |--------------. .-. > | | | | |< 2001:db8:a::/64 4V6T CE > +-+ LAN |--| |-----------------. +-+ > | | | | | |< 2001:db8:a:/56 > --------------' '-' LAN |---| |------------ > | +-+ <= IPv6 packet > ----------------' sent to host H > > - The IPv6 address of host H has a permitted value (at least per sec 3.2.1 of > RFC 3041 on privacy addresses). No. The above indicates some confusion between a prefix and an address Aside from the fact that Host H above has an address that is clearly not derived via SLAAC (not to mention very bogus in the context of rfc3041), on the above link you either have TWO/THREE(?) devices with the same IP address (2001:db8:a::) all on different links, or the 4V6 routers without any address. In either case the set-up is not correct (or at least your model set-up is the problem). Thanks, Woj. _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
